Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <117400024@inmet> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 13:49:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117400024 Posted: Wed Sep 24 13:49:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:17:03 EDT References: <904@sunybcs.UUCP> Lines: 106 Nf-ID: #R:sunybcs.UUCP:-90400:inmet:117400024:000:3637 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Sep 24 13:49:00 1986 [colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ] >> Ideas are abstract in different degree. The rudiments of intelligence >> existing in an amoeba may not deserve the name of ideas; but >> do its rudiments of emotion deserve names such as love? >I don't believe that our emotions are necessarily less rude than >an amoeba's. Do you equate rude and rudimentary? I'd say rudimentary rudeness is less rude than fully developed rudeness... >The amoeba just loves fewer things: plenty of food Now I know which of the definitions of love proposed here you are using: it is "extending the boundaries of self to include the loved object"! >and a clean environment. As it happens, we love them too. It's a >bond between us. I love it already (with an unrequited love...) >> > ... I foresee difficulties in expressing emotion >> >at 1200 baud ... >> >> Ever read the late net.flame? Or, for that matter, the extant groups? >Of course--that's why I foresee difficulties! True, there is a lot of >cruelty on the Net, and some kindness. Those aren't emotions, though. I don't see why... >And flaming isn't a direct expression of hate or anger. It's just a >calculated response. The objects do not perceive the flamers' emotions >directly. Directly ? Only ESP (if that) could do that. > The Net would be a scarier place if they did! (But maybe better for it.) Let's wait till everyone gets a bit nicer. >In fact, teddy bears have it all over computers when it >comes to A.E.! There's something to that. But computers are evolving faster than teddy bears... >Sure, computers are better with words. But that matters only for >people whose emotions are triggered mainly by words. (Come to >think of it, that probably includes a lot of Net users. |-) There may be something to that, too. But why do netters knock the net so much? No one praises it, yet they stay. >> You might say [the program] doesn't *really* feel the emotion - but the >> same objection is made about its thinking. >Wrongly, I believe. It manipulates symbols; that's certainly a form >of thinking. (Nowadays the controversy is usually phrased in terms of >consciousness rather than thinking.) That is, does it think it thinks? > And the emotions are still bogus. Summarizing your estimates: amoebas - can feel, can't think; computers - can think, can't feel; teddy bears - can't think, feel a bit better than computers; net posters - neither think nor feel. >> Your implied objection is that emotion is not expressed in words alone >> - but neither is intelligence. Remember Charles, " our noble king, >> Whose word no man relies on. He never said a foolish thing, >> And never did a wise one" ? >That's why I brought up the electric-eye door. Of course, one can ask >whether the door is acting intelligently _in its own interest!_ Is a doorman? No, the door is a good example. >> The Imitation Game is crooked, but it's the only game in town... >It's been pretty well torn to pieces by Keith Gunderson. Shredding it is easy - but has a substitute been found? >It's only the philosophers who ask whether computers can think. >What ordinary people desperately want to know is: In bleak moments I sometimes feel that ordinary people know no better than the experts... > 1. How can computers help us? That's easy: they provide us with jobs. > 2. How can computers hurt us? They do terrible things to Parkinson's law. The growth of paper- work has accelerated immensely since it's not on paper any more. > "I'll have to make this short; I'm double-parked." > "I deduce that you are a car. How did you learn to type so well?"